Safe Mode: On
Ashton Lundeby Update

FROM LewRockwell.com

It appears that, contrary to what I reported two days ago, Ashton Lundeby is not being held under the USA PATRIOT act.

Earlier today, a memo marked "Not for distribution outside law enforcement" was circulated among officials in Indiana -- where Ashton is being held at the Thomas N. Frederick Juvenile Justice Center in South Bend. The memo complained of hostile publicity given to the case inspired by what were described as "false claims" from Ashton's mother, Annette Lundeby, about the use of the PATRIOT act in the arrest and detention of her son.

Those claims led the office of US Attorney David Capp to issue a press release today insisting that the arrest and detention of Ashton Lundeby "is unrelated to the PATRIOT act."

"The juvenile has appeared in court on three occasions, once in North Carolina for an initial hearing and a detention hearing, and twice in Indiana for a continued initial hearing and a status hearing," the press release relates. "At each hearing, the juvenile was represented by counsel.... The juvenile is presently housed in a juvenile facility in the Northern District of Indiana where he does not have contact with adult offenders. His mother has been apprised of each court appearance and has attended the hearing in North Carolina; she did not appear at either of the hearings in Indiana."

As the press release notes, Annette Lundeby was present during the initial hearing in North Carolina, and until today she was the only source available to describe the details of her son's arrest and the terms of his detention. In interviews I conducted with her both on May 5 and 6, Mrs. Lundeby insisted that the PATRIOT act was invoked by the Feds in this case.

I reported her claims in good faith, buttressed by the assessment presented in the WRAL report from former U.S. Attorney Dan Boyce, as well as the fact -- noted in the essay published on LRC two days ago -- that the PATRIOT act's definition of "domestic terrorism" has been used in at least one other case involving a juvenile accused of a serious crime.

In updates to the original story, I relate that a source close to the prosecution (not directly involved in the prosecution, but with detailed, first-hand knowledge of it) insists that the case against Ashton is strong enough that the use of such extraordinary measures would not be necessary.

Title 18, Section 844 (e) of the US Code makes it a felony punishable by a prison term of up to 10 years to make a bomb threat, either real or bogus, using "the mail, telephone, telegraph, or other instrument of interstate commerce...." That provision would explain the involvement of the FBI in a suspected bomb threat made from North Carolina against Purdue University in Indiana. Whatever the wisdom of that statute, its existence would appear to make use of the PATRIOT act gratuitous. This doesn't mean that the Feds didn't take the easy route, as Mrs. Lundeby claims, of course. But it does mean that if Ashton was involved in making bomb threats, he bought himself more trouble than he expected.

Source;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/026683.html

More story;

Ashton Lundeby is not being held under the USA PATRIOT act. Since the case is under seal at present, the only source for the relevant details is Annette Lundeby; admittedly, she is not an objective observer, but the same would be true of the prosecution, as well.

A memo marked "Not for distribution outside law enforcement" was circulated today accusing Mrs. Lundeby of making "false claims" about the use of the PATRIOT act
and her son's present circumstances.Those claims led the office of US Attorney David Capp to issue a press release today insisting that the charges against Ashton Lundeby "is unrelated to the PATRIOT act."

"The juvenile has appeared in court on three occasions, once in North Carolina for an initial hearing and a detention hearing, and twice in Indiana for a continued initial hearing and a status hearing," the press release relates. "At each hearing, the juvenile was represented by counsel.... The juvenile is presently housed in a juvenile facility in the Northern District of Indiana where he does not have contact with adult offenders. His mother has been apprised of each court appearance and has attended the hearing in North Carolina; she did not appear at either of the hearings in Indiana."


I am informed that the facility where Ashton is currently incarcerated is the Thomas N. Frederick Juvenile Justice Center in South Bend, Indiana. Although he is subject to federal prosecution, the detention center is a county facility. Ashton -- as noted below -- faces prosecution under federal statutes for making bogus interstate bomb threats.


As the press release notes, Annette Lundeby was present during the initial hearing in North Carolina, and until today she was the only source available to describe the details of her son's arrest and the terms of his detention. In interviews I conducted with her both on May 5 and 6, Mrs. Lundeby has insisted that the PATRIOT act was invoked by the Feds in this case.


I reported her claims in good faith, buttressed by the assessment presented in the WRAL report from former U.S. Attorney Dan Boyce, as well as the fact -- noted in the original essay below -- that the PATRIOT act has been used in at least one other case involving a juvenile accused of a serious crime. Interestingly, the Feds have not denied that they're applying the PATRIOT act in this case; there's no reason not to issue such a denial if Mrs. Lundeby's claim is untrue.


As indicated in the first update below, which was filed just hours after the original post, a source close to the prosecution (not directly involved in the prosecution, but with detailed, first-hand knowledge of it) insists that the case against Ashton is strong enough that the use of such extraordinary measures would not be necessary.


Title 18, Section 844 (e) of the US Code makes it a felony punishable by a prison term of up to 10 years to make a bomb threat, either real or bogus, using "the mail, telephone, telegraph, or other instrument of interstate commerce...." That provision would explain the involvement of the FBI in a suspected bomb threat made from North Carolina against Purdue University in Indiana. Whatever the wisdom of that statute, its existence would appear to make use of the PATRIOT act gratuituous. This doesn't mean that the Feds didn't take the easy route, as Mrs. Lundeby claims, of course. But it does mean that if Ashton was involved in making bomb threats, he bought himself more trouble than he expected.


Continued in length at;
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/


Click to view image: 'patriot act'

Click to view image: 'ashton lundeby'

Added: May-8-2009 Occurred On: May-7-2009
By: wet501
In:
News
Tags: Ashton Luneby, patriot act, crime, bomb threat, false
Location: South Bend, Indiana, United States (load item map)
Views: 10740 | Comments: 6 | Votes: 1 | Favorites: 1 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • This isn't the first time I am reading about holes in the mother's story.It seems Ashton,under the alias *Tyrone*, has been having himself some chuckles on youtube.Great example of christian youth to build up a fan base making crank calls.Now, that may not be him I saw on the 4chanvent channel, maybe it is people trying to bury and discredit this story? Idk, going to look more into it.If she's lying I'd like about 5 minutes with her myself.

    Posted May-8-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Since then the kid has pleaded guilty, paid restitution to half a dozen universities for causing bomb scares, and been released on time served.

    When Lundeby was arrested, it seemed like a dream come true Patriot Act opponents and political partisans. That was because Mom purposely told the story in a way that would get people angry on behalf of her kid. Mom would have done better to limit her son's activities on the internet.

    People tend not to be skeptical over stories that seem to support th More..

    Posted May-9-2011 By 

    (0) | Report